Americans voted for Change

[Lorizael]

That's clearly not as much fun.

[Theben]

Why? I've already said that I don't know if the benefits of enhanced interrogations outweigh the costs. I'm not claiming that they do. I'm only saying that there's room to have a rational discussion of this issue on the merits, rather than relying on blanket moral judgments to slander your opponents and justify self-satisfied histrionics.

Well IMHO the only way to have said discussion is for someone to put forth something akin to merits for torture, cuz I haven't seen any yet. Nor do I see any mentioned anywhere else.

Personally I feel you're just trolling again.

[Velociryx]

Yes please. Let's hear all about the "merits" of torture (oh wait, "enhanced interrogation techniques.") What's on the plus side? Roll out your experts.

-=Vel=-

(and maybe after this "rational discussion", we can hold a "rational discussion" about the cost-benefit analysis of flying jets into buildings. After all, the moral cost might not be infinite, and the benefits might not be nil, so you know, there might be some instances when...)

[Drake Tungsten]

What's on the plus side?

It provides information that helps in the fight against terrorists.

Roll out your experts.

President Obama’s national intelligence director told colleagues in a private memo last week that the harsh interrogation techniques banned by the White House did produce significant information that helped the nation in its struggle with terrorists.

“High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qa’ida organization that was attacking this country,” Adm. Dennis C. Blair, the intelligence director, wrote in a memo to his staff last Thursday.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/us/politics/22blair.html

[Velociryx]

LMAO!

Wait wait...so let me get this right...

Your position is one of wanting to have a rational discussion about the cost benefit analysis of torture, and when confronted by folks who don't believe there's any benefit, you trot out an expert to prove that there IS some net benefit.

You could have picked from any number of articles on the 'net, and one must make the assumption that you'd choose one that would come down strongly on the side you're trying to represent, so you pick Admiral Blair, whose conclusions (taken from the very same article you quoted) are these (emphasis mine)

“The information gained from these techniques was valuable in some instances, but there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means,” Admiral Blair said in a written statement issued last night. “The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security."

In simpler language: Cost>>>Benefit. This, from the expert YOU chose to quote.

“What makes the United States special, and what makes you special, is precisely the fact that we are willing to uphold our values and our ideals even when it’s hard, not just when it’s easy.”

Dude, that's priceless.

-=Vel=-

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/us...s/22blair.html

[Drake Tungsten]

Your position is one of wanting to have a rational discussion about the cost benefit analysis of torture, and when confronted by folks who don't believe there's any benefit, you trot out an expert to prove that there IS some net benefit.

No, I picked an expert who...

1. Claims that there were benefits to enhanced interrogations (not necessarily net benefits).

2. Is better positioned than almost anyone else on the planet to know whether there were benefits or not. Blair is the Director of National Intelligence, not some NYT op-ed writer or reporter.

You believe there are no benefits to enhanced interrogations, but Obama's DNI disagrees with you.

You could have picked from any number of articles on the 'net, and one must make the assumption that you'd choose one that would come down strongly on the side you're trying to represent

Why would I do that? If I picked someone without impeccable left-wing credentials, you'd dismiss them out of hand as a right-wing hack. Blair is the perfect person to reference, since he supports my point and was hand-picked by Obama to run U.S. intelligence. You can't attack this messenger.

[Velociryx]

Drake, my God, that's probably the lamest troll I've seen from you yet. You're slipping. Too many right wing blogs...starting to rot your brain.

A few points:

1) You can stop beating the “You believe there are no benefits to enhanced interrogations” Strawman any time now. I said that the likelihood of getting good intel from them was very low (while the cost was very high) (reference post # 273). This is not the same as "no instance of torture has ever in the history of man produced any intel of value." Having you constantly misstate my position doesn’t make it so, no matter how much you’d like it.

2) I’ve not seen ANYONE on “my side” of the argument make such a claim. Our position has been from the beginning that even when reliable intel is gleaned in this manner, the moral cost is worth far, far more than whatever may have been gained (and when you add to this the fact that a great many experts in the field are saying that the same intel could have been gotten via traditional interrogation means, it further undermines the position you are trying in vain to defend).

3) Since the above is our position, in order to have any sort of “rational dialogue” about the cost-benefit of torture, we almost by definition need to be talking about the net gain or loss, so your attempt to dodge the issue by claiming a non-zero benefit (in addition to being a case of beating on a strawman) is disingenuous at best.

4) Your own hand-picked expert concluded that the torture methodologies used (which, by your own admission don’t fit your definition of torture, and are therefore much less barbaric than some other torture options that could have been used) “far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us” (his words, per your article).

Again, in plain language you can easily understand, cost >>>> benefits.

One would expect that as even MORE barbaric methods were used (until we finally cross the “Drake Torture Threshold”), the moral costs would continue to increase. The problem is, if it’s a losing hand using methodologies you DON’T view as being torture, then it’s an even bigger losing hand when we finally hit upon something that crosses that line for you.

Given the above, your article certainly does not support your position. It DOES, however, mirror what me, Arrian, and others have been saying from go.

-=Vel=-

PS: Had you bothered to read the examples I cited, you’d find that they were hardly fluffy opinion pieces. One cites a government report on the effectiveness of torture (it’s not named, but is reported as being the same length as the PDF I referenced later), another was written by Brig. Gen. David Irvine, and one quoted Col. Kleinman (himself a military interrogator). The PDF I referenced was developed by the National Defense Intelligence College. Only the Newsweek piece didn't reference a report direct, or wasn't authored by someone directly involved.

[DinoDoc]

Obama Administration to Release Detainee Abuse Photos; Former CIA Official Says Former Colleagues 'Don't Believe They Have Cover Anymore'
....

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/04/obama-adminis-3.html

[MrFun]

DD, remember you don't give a **** about anything?

[SlowwHand]

Like most sane people, I tend to only be upset about things I know about, as opposed to things I have no knowledge of.

Did you have knowledge that John McCain was tortured?

[MrFun]

What worries me about those who had no problems with torture of terrorist suspects is that I wonder if those same people would have no problem with our enemies torturing American captives.

[Drake Tungsten]

Again, in plain language you can easily understand, cost >>>> benefits.

Well, now that I've finally gotten you to agree to a rational examination of the costs and benefits, let's move on to stage two. What kind of numbers can you assign to the "moral costs" of enhanced interrogations that might convince me that the costs always exceed the benefits? I'm not sure this is true even in the aggregate, let alone in specific cases like that of KSM.

[Velociryx]

Drake,

It appears you didn't read your own expert, and it further appears that you missed the conversation entirely.

Your own guy (who is, per you, "better positioned than almost anyone else on the planet to know whether there were benefits or not.") has concluded that the costs have outweighed the benefits (and from the context, it sure sounds to me as though he was speaking in the aggregate).

So if you're wanting to actually HAVE the rational discussion you keep claiming to, it would seem to me you'd need to a) find an expert who actually holds the opinion that there's some NET benefit to be found, and b) be able to provide us with an example of when such a net benefit occured.

And by the way, the snippet you quoted is the very phrase that several of us have been using from go, so you certainly didn't have to wait till post #322 to claim that you "finally convinced" anyone of anything and move on to stage two.

You really want to have this discussion, then as has been said before, the onus is on you.

I know for a fact that I'm not qualified to place a dollar value on the moral costs of torture, and I'd be willing to bet that you're not either, so in the absence of that, we have to rely on experts in the field. You've already made the claim that the expert you picked was prolly the in the best position on the planet to be able to assess these kinds of things, and he published his assessment.

Like it or not, it (his assessment) didn't agree with yours, so where would you like to take the discussion next? Time to move the goal post again?

Jesus, you're getting as bad as Kid. No wonder 'poly is dying. It needs to be renamed www.feedthetrolls.com (which is available, btw)



-=Vel=-

[Drake Tungsten]

Your own guy (who is, per you, "better positioned than almost anyone else on the planet to know whether there were benefits or not.") has concluded that the costs have outweighed the benefits

I seriously doubt Blair has tried to quantify the costs of enhanced interrogations anymore than you have. As such, his judgment about whether the costs outweigh the benefits is educated guessing, at best. Needless to say, this isn't the basis for any sort of rational and rigorous examination of the costs and benefits of enhanced interrogations.

So if you're wanting to actually HAVE the rational discussion you keep claiming to, it would seem to me you'd need to a) find an expert who actually holds the opinion that there's some NET benefit to be found, and b) be able to provide us with an example of when such a net benefit occured.

Figuring out the benefits of enhanced interrogations for certain successful cases that we know about is relatively straightforward. All you need is an estimate of the probability that the terror plot would have succeeded in the absence of enhanced interrogations and a damage estimate for the plot in order to calculated an expected value for the benefits. This is harder to do on the aggregate than for specific cases, but as certain high-profile successes would likely account for a large proportion of the benefits gained, it wouldn't be too hard to get a reasonably accurate estimate of overall benefits.

Quantifying the costs is much more difficult. Yourself and others keep claiming that the moral costs of enhanced interrogations are huge, but that's a questionable argument. What actual costs accrue to the United States due to the use of enhanced interrogation techniques? Are American business interests hurt because citizens in other countries no longer want to associate with the U.S.? Have the costs of protecting U.S. national security interests gone up due to increased hostility on the part of other states and their citizens towards the U.S.? These are plausible mechanisms by which the use of enhanced interrogation techniques (and the associated fall in American moral standing) might harm the U.S., but it's not clear at all that the costs associated with them substantial, let alone great enough to outweigh the expected benefit of preventing another 9/11 (or worse). Any rational discussion of the issue requires that numbers be put to these costs, as best as can be achieved.

I know for a fact that I'm not qualified to place a dollar value on the moral costs of torture

Then how can you be so sure that the costs outweigh the benefits? I'm honest about my limitations and have made no claim that the benefits outweigh the costs or vice-versa. I've only argued that it's possible that the benefits outweigh the costs. You're the one making indefensibly strong conclusions about this issue, not me.

[Drake Tungsten]

As an example...

1. Calculate direct costs of 9/11, ie. property losses, cleanup, rescue costs.

Source: http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/aug02/homeland.asp

2. Calculate value of lives lost on 9/11, with VSL = $7.2 million.

Source: http://www.amazon.com/Three-Trillion...0780640&sr=8-1

3. Sum above costs and set indirect costs to zero for simplicity.

4. Assume a "Second Wave" attack on the Library Tower in LA would result in one quarter the costs of 9/11.

5. Assume a 1% chance that the attack on the Library Tower would succeed if enhanced interrogation techniques had not been used on KSM.

6. Benefit of using enhanced interrogation techniques on KSM is $121.5 million.

And this is most likely low-balling the benefit.